It's Like THE WARRIORS, But With Real Warriors!!

Merrick here...
Hoping to capitalize on the success of 300, Columbia is ramping up ANABASIS. It involves those damn Persians...the same troublemakers faced down by Gerard Butler and his fetishistically diapered army of well-chiseled sweaty men in 300.

The studio has acquired a pitch for an adaptation of "Anabasis," a memoir written around 400 B.C. by Xenophon, a Greek soldier who was among 10,000 elite mercenaries who attacked the Persian Empire and who led them back through hostile terrain after their leader was betrayed and slain.

...says THIS ARTICLE in Variety.
The project will be scripted by playwright Robert Schenkkan, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of THE KENTUCKY CYCLE.

Stranded deep in enemy territory, the Spartan general Clearchus and the other Greek senior officers were subsequently killed or captured by treachery on the part of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes. Xenophon played an instrumental role in encouraging the Greek army of 10,000 to march north to the Black Sea. Now abandoned in Mesopotamia, without supplies other than what they could obtain by force, the 10,000 had to fight their way northwards through Kurdistan and Armenia, making ad hoc decisions about their leadership, tactics, and destiny.

...explains THIS WIKI ENTRY.
The ANABASIS scenario was a template for Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS. This could be damn cool; wonder what role Shia will play?

After 10 years of coming to this site, thousands of articles read, probably millions of words, I finally had to look up the meaning of a word on AICN, a word was used I did not know. The word? "Satrap".<p>
Either AICN got smarter or I got dumber. It is probably the later...

kicks ass on 100 different levels. I'm not all that interested in the persian history used as its template. I mean, it's not possible for characters to be that much more interesting than the Baseball Furies, is it?

What, this isn't more anti-Arab propaganda? Next thing you'll tell me Starship Troopers isn't about American colonialism. That it's just a dumb monster movie. A movie having anything to do with past or present conflict with Middle-easterns that doesn't have any timely subtext at all to it -- be it anti, pro, or whatever -- might as well just be another one of those WWE clown starring vehicles.

300 was OK, but another film where the Persians are the baddies. It is starting to sound like propaganda. I know some beautiful Persian people. I can't help but to think about the US citizens that aren't living near Persian Americans. Easily influenced retards might start to get the wrong idea about them.

Yeah, there's like one boob shot, and then 2 hours of greased-down male models running around in speedoes hitting in each other and grunting in slow motion. It is HOWLINGLY gay. How many times have you watched it? Let me guess? ALOT? You know you should just come out of the closet, you'll feel much better about yourself.

Are you numb nuts actually that stupid? For real? Anti Persian propoganda? Are you for serious? Um okay, two movies (count 'em two), one of which is propably being made simply to capitalize on the first, both of which take place thousands of years ago, and are based (however loosely or biased) on factual events; is supposed to somehow constitute some great Anti Iranian movement in American entertainment? Heavens above that is the lamest, knee jerk, hare-brained thing I have seen in a long time. I swear this head in the sand PC crap has got to stop...guess what, no matter what they are like now, at one time the Persians where enemies with other people, and those other people, didn't like them, so when they wrote about their experiences, the Persians are bad....just like when our enemies have/will write about us, we come off as the ultimate douches. Of course if you are an American, it seems like the whole world thinks the only enemy you are allowed to have is yourself, no matter the action of others...

How fucking insecure. OMG! Two or more dudes within the same square mile! How GAY!<p>I guess I have to get rid of (mostly) all my friends b/c they're males and replace them with females. Oh wait, gay dudes have mainly women as their friends... OHHHHhhh! I see what you're trying to do. You sneaky little bastards. Feel free to keep trying but your feeble attempts at further emasculating men will not work. We're sick of your bullshit and the pendulum will swing back soon enough.

300 greased down male models in speedoes punching each other and grunting in eroticized slow motion for two hours, and then beating the bottom villain (penetration; he's a catcher, they're all pitchers) and saving the day for more raging butch gay fantasees. <br><br>
I think the telling thing is here is just how gay the fans of 300 are and don't realize it. Its funny! Look, its okay, maybe you're not even full on gay, just a little gay or bi. It's okay, its natural. Don't fight the gay, accept the gay. It is, after all, your nature. The more you repress it, the more it will pop up in weird ways. Like, for instance, being a raging, borderline sociopathic fan of 300. If you weren't gay, or a little bit gay, 300 wouldn't fascinate you so much. Personally, I thought it was straight-up retarded, and found the raging homoeroticism (coupled with its homophobia) more than a little ironic.<br><br>
Also ironic is how vigorously its fans will defend it. Sounds like a case of the closets to me. Tonight we dine in hell! Shashay shantay!

Nope. How many times can the utterly ridiculous and illogical arguments of "well, maybe you're just repressing it" OR "ya know, the people who oppose it the most are the ones dealing with it in themselves"? Yeah, good one. It's up there with "I know you are but what am I?". It's a complete logical fallacy. Most people -ages 8 and up- can comprehend that.<p>As I said, men will continue to be men. Be friends and brothers with other men. And have sex with women. After all, it's natural :)

300 was just a fucking homoerotic fantasy for borderline-gay-but-homophobic teenagers who kept chest bumping each other whenever Leonidas yelled at somebody. And also the theatre I was in was full of retards cheering during that really lame slow motion sex scene (hell, the whole movie was slow-mo).
I'm guessing this will be a better movie, it sounds better already. Hopefully it disappoints all the 300 fans, those people probably take the movie as history.

I like this trend. I was getting bored Germans, Russians and Chinese were being used up way too many times. Watch 300 again, it does suck badly. What I really hate about that movie is young retards thought it was a true story. I remember some 13 year old shit head walking out of theater(He snuck in or was brought in I don't know). And he turned and asked his friend: They had monsters back then? I wanted to kill them both right there. But jail ain't my thing. It is for people who like 300 though, because of the group showers. Zing! I kid, I kid...

Seriously, that has to be the lamest rhetorical riposte I ever heard.<br><br>
Btw, its not a logical fallacy that homophobes often, if not always, are overcompensating for their own repressed feeling of homosexuality, otherwise, they wouldn't care. Its not a fallacy, its demonstrated psychological fact.<br><<br>
Oh, and yes, men w/ women is natrual, is so men w/ men, and women w/ women. Its all natural, actually, The only people who feel otherwise are religious-freak homophobes at war with their own repressed sexuality. Fact.

Oh, and yes, men w/ women is natural, is so men w/ men, and women w/ women. Its all natural, actually, The only people who feel otherwise are religious-freak homophobes at war with their own repressed sexuality. Fact.

Otherwise it wouldn't happen. Pwned. <br><br>Let me guess, you're one of those Jeebus people? They always turn out to be the most ragingly hardcore repressed gay. Thats why priests are always raping kids and shit. They're so repressed they go nuts and turn into pedophiles. If they were allowed to be gay in a safe context with other adults, they wouldn't want to turn to children as predators. Fact.

You're still a fucking idiot.<p>
But keep ranting about homophobes and repressed homosexuals in the TBs, it's good for a laugh, Mr. Junior Psychoanalyst.<p>
Hey, guess what, I enjoyed 300 for exactly what it was, a stylized graphic novel brought to the big screen. 3 minutes after it ended, I was wondering what was for dinner, not where the local adult theater was.

And how much did you pay those male strippers to dress up like Spartans? Don't worry. I'll never tell your dark secret!<br><br>
And of course you enjoyed 300 for what it was! A stylized graphic novel with a blatant homosexual and homophobic subtext brought to the big screen. It's okay, man, it doesn't necessarily make you gay.

Yup, the Jeebus people are the ONLY people in the world opposed to homosexuality. I capitalized "ONLY" b/c I'm starting to notice a pattern of you using absolute terms such as "always" and "everything". Didn't we all learn in elementary school that many times statements containing the words "always" or "never" are patently false? Yet you continually throw them out there. Anyway, if the behavior ain't occurring in me [FACT] or in 90%+ of the population [FACT], how natural can it be?<p>How's the dog rape coming along? Is that natural, too?

Actually, estimates point to homosexuality being a much higher percentage, but that many people are still too afraid to admit it, for fear of being socially ostracized or even killed by their local violent religious zealots. You know, the Jeebus people.<br><brr> But regardless of all of that, you actually believe that if only 10% of the population does something or is something, thats it unnatural? Really? So then you must believe that all left-handed people are unnatural because thats approximately how many people are left handed. How about people with green/brown eyes? Studies show they make up only about %12 of the population! Thats dangerously close to aberrant behavior in your holy rubric. I mean, dang! What a fucked world you live in. You must spend your whole life in crippling mortal fear of sinning against a god that doesn't exist. But you loved 300. Go. Fucking. Figure. Perhaps you should pray harder, like REAL hard.

Ohhhhh...ESTIMATES. Estimates by whom? ... We're really getting into the semantics now, aren't we? The word "natural" and its slightly different meanings. AND you went there...teh gayz getting killed and persecuted. Why? Once again you have given reason to discount your opinion.<p>Homosexuals and left-handedness: that's an apt comparison? Seriously? You truly are willing to go to the ends of the universe to defend your position.<p>I think someone has mentioned this before in the TBs- According to your theory, could you not reasonably be labeled a 'closet Theophilos', a 'repressed Christian'? Since you obviously and wholeheartedly oppose/don't believe in God or any other supernatural, higher being. Perhaps that you fear being socially ostracized by the company you keep in your community. Or maybe that logic only applies when its convenient to your cause. There are probably gays and lesbians who are raging hardcore repressed heteros. This is so confusing.<p>Let's be real. Calling someone who disagrees with homosexuality a "raging hardcore repressed gay" or a "closet homosexual" is just an insult and an attempt to embarass them in hopes that they just shut up and stop vocally disagreeing. It's a smear, plain and simple. Opposition = hate! Non-acceptance = persecution! Non-glorification = intolerance!